A quiet friendship, real contact, and a very real obstacle: money
A real relationship, but not a conventional friendship
The relationship between Jimi Hendrix and Miles Davis was not built on constant interaction. It was something subtler: mutual recognition between equals.
Miles rarely praised other musicians openly. When he did, it meant he saw them as structural innovators, not stylistic curiosities. Hendrix was one of them.
Direct contact did happen
There is strong evidence that they knew each other personally:
- Miles attended Hendrix’s concerts
- Hendrix closely followed Miles’s electric period
- shared collaborators acted as bridges between them
Their communication was direct but intermittent: conversations, messages, intentions expressed more than formal plans.
The recording idea: real, but vulnerable
Miles wanted Hendrix inside his electric universe, not as a guest star. The idea leaned toward open, unstructured sessions, possibly at Electric Lady Studios.
Then came the problem.
The real obstacle: money — on Miles’s side
Contrary to common belief, Hendrix was not the financial problem.
Miles was.
By the late 1960s:
- Miles did not sell records like Hendrix
- his contracts were far less lucrative
- his electric direction was commercially risky
Hiring Hendrix meant:
- enormous fees
- high production costs
- label resistance
Miles had artistic freedom, but limited economic power.
A cruel paradox
Artistically, the collaboration made perfect sense.
Economically, it was nearly impossible.
Miles often worked with underpaid musicians; Hendrix was a global icon. Bringing him into an experimental jazz project created an imbalance Miles could not realistically sustain.
Better no collaboration than a compromised one.
After Hendrix
Miles never dramatized Hendrix’s death publicly. Instead, he pushed further into electric music, culminating in A Tribute to Jack Johnson.
Not a tribute — but proof that the dialogue continued internally.
Final thought
The Hendrix–Davis collaboration didn’t fail artistically.
It failed economically.
And sometimes, that’s how musical history is written.